Oregon’s new “Worker Freedom” law is being challenged in court

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.laborradio.org/node/12678

Submitted by Jesse Russell on January 3, 2010 - 1:29pm
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

Lede: Oregon’s new “Worker Freedom” law is being challenged in court. Doug Cunningham has more.

A new law in Oregon is being challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The law was scheduled to go into effect January 1st. Backed by the Oregon AFL-CIO the law allows workers to opt out of workplace meetings when their personal views on the topic discussed differs from managements’. The law says workers can’t be disciplined or fired for it. Many employers use captive, mandatory meetings to deride unions and intimidate workers into turning against union organizing drives. Tom Chamberlain, head of the Oregon AFL-CIO, told the Public News Service, the suit is about management keeping it’s power to intimidate workers.

: "They have the power - they want to keep the power. They want to be able to have their one-on-one meetings. They want to be unfettered on how they address things such as politics, religion and union organizing."


Oregon’s Worker Freedom Law doesn’t prevent management from speaking out on any issue – it just lets workers decide not to attend meetings called by management on controversial issues.

: "Poll after poll after poll has proven that Oregonians feel very strongly that employers should not have the right to have mandated meetings on these issues.”

[Ferret Annica]

1. I was fired from a hardwood furniture mill in Eugene, Oregon

for telling a management official I found his anti union joke he had just told sucked and why I thought so.

Not sorry I did that either, and I would do it again. If I ever run into this sort of practice in Oregon, I will not go to such meetings and make it clear why.

We need stronger unions and more of them.

[iamjoy]

2. Isn't Such A Law A Little Useless

I mean, it's one of those things that sounds good in theory but never quite works in practice. For example, say a company was going to have a meeting about why having a non-Union shop is a good thing. Naturally, Pro-Union workers would want to opt-out and this law would allow it without fear of retaliation. So, the company merges the anti-Union meeting with a Safety Procedures Update briefing. Or, the anti-Union propoganda is slipped into training on a new process. Then the people who chose to skip the meeting aren't disciplined for ditching the meeting, but for not following the new procedures...

It seems like a law that wouldn't have much teeth anyway. Of course, I live in a Right-To-Be-Fired, ahem "Right To Work" state so please enlighten me here about how this law could actually do some good. Again, the concept sounds good, no need to sell me on it.